I really hope all that can be done, will be done to protect all worthy charities. Thanks to Labour’s mis-handling of the economy too many will suffer as a consequence. This must Never be forgotten.
Nothing to do with the bankers then…
More ideological Tory cuts that will affect the multi-millionaire cabinet not one jot.
They are despicable but this, along with every other cut, will be fought.
Whilst I think that the cuts are ideological, rather than necessary, I am also unconvinced that gay people need these kinds of charity organisations in order to survive and thrive in the world. I am willing to be convinced, but we need actual facts as to how they help people – rather than just claims that they do…
@ Jock, are you seriously blaming labour? Please. Get a grip. The tories are doing this, and they’re doing it because bankers screwed up the economy.
I have just signed up as a volunteer to provide primarily sexual health focused one-on-one mentoring services with a partnership in London. I have to admit that we received an email telling us that this service will probably be cut next year.
It is services like this that reach out to our communities and ensure that people who are at risk get the support and assistance that they need to get their lives back on track.
Hitting the poorest and most vulnerable with cuts in this manner only serves to make life difficult in the future.
Let’s also get this straight. Labour weren’t great economically but they bloody hell weren’t as greedy as the pig bankers that stuffed money into their own purses to the detriment of everyone else.
You really think that cutting loads of money from services which are needed (and which local government often rely on) is going to help? It’s not going to affect Cameron, Osborne or the other toffs sitting in the cabinet office with their old boys.
Perhaps we should focus on taking back some of the money that they’ve got and get over this idea that they’re somehow better than us.
London Council grant is about £1.6m – LGBT and £600K HIV/AIDS as shown:
Service No. Organisation Total London
29 Age Concern London £920,000
07 Central London Arts Ltd £222,016
33 Consortium of Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Voluntary and Community Organisations £240,000
16 CVS Hounslow/ West London Network £357,816
61, 63 Galop £256,116
33 Kairos in Soho £160,000
30 PACE £190,475
52 Stonewall Housing £300,436
ervice No. Organisation Total London
38 Hillingdon Law Centre £283,264
46, 48 & 51 Terrence Higgins Trust £209,471
24 The Food Chain £141,696
London councils re consultating on how to spend the £28million pounds given that 7.5m people reside within London this equates to about £3.50 being spent per person, given that a council tax D is about £1200.00 is this cost effective and proporationate?
“Let’s also get this straight. Labour weren’t great economically but they bloody hell weren’t as greedy as the pig bankers that stuffed money into their own purses to the detriment of everyone else.”
This is an odd thing to say, given that the first thing Labour did when it came into office was give the Bank of England its independence, and the close relationship between the higher echelons of Labour and Bankers is well documented. As for greed, how much has Tony Blair earned since leaving office? (Esp. in his consultancy role for JPMorgan Chase, an investment bank!).
The Tories are ideologically driven, but please don’t pretend to yourself that the Labour party wasn’t cosy as kissing cousins with the Bankers who wrecked the economy.
“It is services like this that reach out to our communities and ensure that people who are at risk get the support and assistance that they need to get their lives back on track.”
Of course, you can provide us with the solid evidence that this is what such services DO do.
Joe – The fact you don’t need LGBT services (or haven’t found yourself in a situation where you do) is great. Please don’t assume that everyone else is in the same boat. The LGBT voluntary sector helps thousands of extremely vulnerable people each year in a way that mainstream services cant and at a fraction of the cost. Those people would otherwise have gone under the radar. We’re not talking about services that just ‘make people feel better’. They genuinely save lives.
London set to lose at least £355 million this year through government cuts Released on 21 June 2010
London’s local and regional government is set to lose at least £355 million this year as a result of the funding cuts already announced, research by London Councils has shown.
The analysis was carried out to gauge the true impact to the capital of the £1.166 billion cuts in funding for local government recently outlined by the government. The impact could be greater as the research doesn’t include any announcements that may be made in tomorrow’s budget.
Its findings show that the capital’s local authorities are set to lose £169.3 million – more than double previous estimates. This is through the combined reductions in general area based grants, funding for achieving Local Area Agreement targets and through other funding streams like Local Authority Business Growth Incentive grants and Housing Planning and Delivery grants.
With the Greater London Authority (GLA) set to lose £185.6 million it means London’s local and regional government is set to lose at least £354.9 million.
However, London Councils fears that the capital could lose even more funding as the government still have to outline how schemes like Building Schools for the Future will be affected by the cuts.
“The LGBT voluntary sector helps thousands of extremely vulnerable people each year…”
Ok, I hear that you believe this. But you saying it doesn’t make it true. Where is the evidence? If the evidence isn’t there, then no wonder the services are under threat. Simply claiming they save lives isn’t proof to anyone that they do.
Public consultation on future commissioning priorities for the grants programmeReleased on 14 October 2009
Why is it left so late?
They are not not Bankers they are Bangsters!
Joe – Thousands of reports and studies online which do exactly that. Just look for them. If you’re not sure exactly what LGBT services do, start with annual reports?
Nick you seem like a genuine bloke be careful who you respond to there are direct link in the strnfromt site to posts here and due to the fact that anyone can post here under any name you’re wasting you’re time challenging them.
Bankers might be responsible for the financial crisis, which was manifest in a short term refusal to give credit and significant asset write downs; they are not on the other hand responsible for Brown’s massive overspending and tendency to hose cash at anything and everything.
Notwithstanding the bank bailouts, which account for a small portion of our national debt, Brown was borrowing £1 of every £4 spent by the government by the time he was booted out.
Let me repeat that – borrowing 1 in every 4 pounds spent.
Please don’t delude yourself either that he was borrowing this to build hospitals and schools. These are being paid for by the private finance initiative, yet more debt incurred by the financial madman, so we STILL haven’t finished paying for these.
Brown borrowed money to pay for illegal wars, a bloated benefits system, and an army of public sector workers doing those oh-so-necessary-jobs such as pillow managers, diversity officers and five a day co-ordinators.
Now if you think the cuts are evil, Tory ideology, then why did Alistair Darling propose exactly the same cuts, but later – and at least they are being matched by cuts in benefits to 40% tax payers.
Don’t be a blinkered – these services will disappear because of Brown’s economic madness.
I hate the ugly, Scots Tw*t.
Bankers are the easy target – they make a lot of money so they must be evil, right?
I tend to think it is a bit more complicated than that. Since the independence of Bank of England (both Brown and Blair claimed credit for it) supply of money grew faster than the growth of productivity. This is bacause the guiding principle of the BoE is “Inflation Targeting”. i.e raise rate if inflation is higher than target, and lower rate otherwise. However, during the same period globalisation brought a hugh workforce from emerging countries to the world economy. They exerted an deflationary pressure to push prices down.
To maintain the same inflation target, BoE (along with the European Central Bank and many others) maintain an artifically low interest rate for an extended period. This caused money supply growth to outstrip productivity growth. An analogy of this that if you want more money in your pocket than what you earn, you will have to borrow. The result of this excessive money supply for an extended period is that the government, corporates and households are all saddled with debt.
However, debt cannot grow forever. People who lend you money will question your ability to repay. The UK government is wise to keep debt under control before crisis point.
Do bankers play a part in all this? Yes of course they do. All the crazy mortgage products and derivatives that no one understands contributed to the instability of the system. But they are just the “pricks” that pierced an ever inflating bubble. The primary blame has to be on the ones who kept inflating the bubble in the first place.
Who kept bubbles inflating? Central bankers who fought yesterday’s war (inflation) while not recognising how globalisation changed the world; politicians who refused to ever “let the recession run its course” by borrowing and spending money they don’t have; householders who believed house prices will only go up, and yes bankers who use their knowledge to take advantage of the system. There is enough blame to go around
Check out what your council is spending your taxpayers money on, check out this fantastic list: http://tinyurl.com/2f3wojf
Look at what your council has been giving to there religious friends!
“The tories are doing this, and they’re doing it because bankers screwed up the economy.”
Yes the Tories are doing it. They are doing it because Labour didn’t. It wasn’t the Tories that filed financial regulation in the ‘Lets not bother’ drawer, it was Labour. It wasn’t the Tories that permitted the banking sector to reward failure with sky high bonuses, it was Labour.
The Tories are once again in the regrettable position of having to pick up the pieces of an economy wrecked by Labour.
This story makes it sound like gay people are the only ones who are going to suffer, as with many stands of life, when someone has behaved very stupidly, it all comes home to roost and everyone suffers.
The debt is not huge by historic standards. The national debt in 1945 was over 3 times bigger. If the people in power now had been in power then, they would have said that the NHS and the welfare state were out of the question, and nothing like a decent social democratic society tackling deprivation, inequality and disease would have even been attempted.
Nor is our public sector big by, for instance, French, German or Scandinavian standards. These myths are being peddled to justify the destruction of an enabling State and the redistribution of wealth back to the rich. It is obvious to anyone that deep and savage cuts will not only hurt the poor, they will make unemployment soar, depress demand, reduce tax revenues, and actually reduce our capacity to pay back the debt. The nonsense of the Coalition suggesting that an expanding private sector will ‘take up the slack’ is to say that business can grow and produce new jobs on falling demand. It is economic fantasy.
I am not an apologist for New Labour or Gordon Brown. They believed the financiers’ fairy-tale that the markets could defy gravity forever and accordingly borrowed recklessly against supposedly never-ending tax returns – just as too many private borrowers did against hugely inflated property values.
But let’s stop pretending that this started under Labour. The replacement of industrial and productive capitalism by the untrammelled financial variety began under Thatcher and Regan.
We need slow and selective cuts, investment in industry, infrastructure and technology, and, partly to achieve them, much greater control of the banks who(unlike most others), have been treated to truly lavish state subsidies. But none of this is on the cards for the forseeable.
The cutbacks these community services are facing are, sadly, about to be dwarfed by everything else about to happen.
You are quite right to say that by historical standard public debt as a percentage of GDP is not particularly high. However, as economists will always say: “this time it’s different”
Most western economies, including the UK, face the problem of an ageing workforce. While the size of the population will continue to grow because of improving life expectancy, the size of working population will either remain flat or decline. This problem is unprecedented in history. This means that an ever shrinking pool of tax payers will have to pay the soaring cost of pension and health care. If we do not sort out public finances now the future of the next generation will be dire
Another problem that is unique historically is the integration of the global economy. In the last wave of globalisation foreign colonies provided essential cheap raw material as well as markets for exports. The current wave of globalisation has turned the situation around completely. The UK balance of trade has been deteriorating since the end of the second world war and it has been a net importers since the 80s. This means that this country is no longer generating wealth, or at least the kind of wealth that helped this country pay down the national debt in the past.
The only way to resolve this is to release the private industries to go back to wealth generating activities. This means that the taxes have to be kept low to encourage private enterprises and investment. And these private enterprises have to be able to raise capital through a sound, functional financial system, in a low interest rate environment.
The threat of a credit downgrade is not just theoretical. Earlier in the summer UK gilt was trading at almost a full percentage point over German government bond. The situation was so precarious that a few credit rating agencies had to issue research notes to state that they have “no immediate plan” to downgrade the UK. If the UK government do not get public finances under control, its credit rating can only fall. Then the combination of raising interest rate and increase taxation to pay for the higher financing cost will put this country in a downward spiral.
Oh! for heavens sake Mark.
Which Polytechnic told you all that twaddle.
Out of interest, since Gslop’s accounts on their website are pretty scanty and the last set of accounts are for 2007-2008 , what percentage of the monies they receive are spent on Staff. I was surprised that it was such a large charity that it required a CEO.
I believe that the staffing cost of Stonewall is more than 50% of its “charitable” funds.
I will accept in good faith your information about the level of debt in 1945, however we had just fought a war and I think incurring debt to stave off invasion from a fascist lunatic was probably worth it.
I will also concede that taking on yet more debt to fund a national health service was a good thing.
However, we, or rather the next two generations, are saddled with a debt that was used to p*ss money away on a (probably) illegal war and funding the £100k salaries of Marketing Directors for public hospitals.
You are absolutely right about the public sector in our more advanced European neighbours, but that is because they spend lots of money on maintaining extremely high quality core public services.
Do you know anyone French? I lived there for a few years so know plenty. Try asking them what they think of their local authority spending their taxes on a Diversity Officer and they will look at you like you’re an Alien.
BUDDY…CAN YOU SPARE A DIME?
> The national debt in 1945 was over 3 times bigger.
Yes, but there was enormous slack in the economy and much room for growth. Unlike today.
That is really going to bugger up getting the latest computer systems and those £350 self assemble office desks. So can promotional material still be counted as tax-deductible under necessaries promotional and so on.
I posted this once already and it said I didn’t have enough money please try again later.
The gravy train. A job that pays well and only requires that you look like your working. Oh the good old days. Who said the 80s were dead!
This seems like a bit of editorial bias. An attack on the government from a website that didn’t even report that 150 people attended a gay meeting at the Conservative Party conference (reported in today’s Times)? Because gay people aren’t allowed to be Conservative?
GALOP accounts http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Showcharity/RegisterOfCharities/CharityWithoutPartB.aspx?RegisteredCharityNumber=1077384&SubsidiaryNumber=0
Stonewall accounts http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Showcharity/RegisterOfCharities/CharityWithPartB.aspx?RegisteredCharityNumber=1101255&SubsidiaryNumber=0
With all these cuts….I’m wondering when we are going to see cuts at government level? Get rid of a few of those spongers and we’d see the deficit drop quite a lot.
The ConDem coalition will deliver their Big Society (Homophobes) to take care of their sick and needy (Homosexuals). That will wash their hands off. Gay Tory voters: Duhhhh !!!!
Sorry, I should be politically correct here. Where I wrote sick above, please read —-> Disordered
The Duhhh still stands though…
Duhh Duhh Duhh
Back to grassroots folks, but show your face, don’t go back to closet. gay Tories —>>> DUHHHH
Stop panicking; with Boris in charge of London, what can go wrong?
Good grief, a glance over the Terence Higgins Trust accounts for 2009/10 makes one wonder if they are a charity or an industry:
£20 million for what? They certainly don’t have much to show for the bonanza they rake in year in year out, unless you consider their central offices in prime Kings X, exec. cars and salaries to match. I don’t need an accountant to tell me that most of their income is not being targeted at helping those with HIV and HIV prevention. PC Labour luvvies and a quango in all but name, THT’s gold rush must surely be coming to an end…
Actually THT is one of the better charities in terms of overhead to delivery ratio. If you go thru their annual report you can see that about 2/3 of their expenditure go into service delivery. Support overhead takes up less than 20%, which is not bad at all.
Unfortunately HIV/Aids is still a taboo subject. A lot of the activities that THT do for people living with THT is relatively low key. However, if you know anyone who have been diagnosed positive, they would probably tell you that THT was there to provide support right from the start.
Ultimately we know public spending will need to be cut. The challenge is to identify what are the essential services that need to be kept, and how to delivery them at the lowest cost
I’m glad to see that there is such a debate going on about the impact of the cuts. I am the CEO of Galop and wanted to briefly respond to a couple of the issues that people have raised here.
Firstly, it is true both the not all LGBT pople need access to our services and those of other LGBT organisations, but also that for those who do (and they are many), we stop people from falling through the cracks who feel they have nowhere else to go and no one else who truly understands what they are going through and can be on their side.
There is plenty of eveidence of the value of the work that we do. Funding requirements from funders including London Councils are extremely stringent – they have extremely strict and clear guidlines about the outcomes that we are expected to achieve, and we have to provide evidence that we have done this.
Our success in not in question from any funders, including London Councils. These cuts are affecting the whole voluntary sector in London and are a political decision about how to fund organisations, (locally not regionally) which we would argue fails to take account of the needs of LGBT Londoners, as well as many other groups of Londoners who have some needs that are better met regionally. In fact, London Councils has always been very favourable about our work.
The evidence of the work we do is in the detailed reports that we submit to all funders (sometimes quarterly, sometimes every six months).
It is also in the effect that we have for the clients we work with. We help more than 500 people every year. They have been a victim of hate crime, a victim of domestic abuse, or have found that in some way the police are not helping them when they need help. We provide them with support. Where they need it or want it, we help them find supportive police and to report their crimes. Where they are still in danger we work with them to make safety plans, we help them to access safe accommodation, we advise them on getting legal support such as injunctions. We work with people who have been the victim of sexual abuse who feel that they have nowhere to turn, and help them to get the health support, the counselling, the legal advise and the help from the police that they need.
Other LGBT organisations provide similarly vital services. Stonewall Housing provides actual housing for 41 young LGBT people who are homeless. The reason for their homelessness is often related to their sexuality or gender identity – they may have been thrown out by their parents, may have experienced domestic and sexual abuse. They are often dealing with coming out at the same time and feel very isolated. As well as housing them, Stonewall Housing works with them to provide the support and structure they need to get sorted, get work or an education and move on with their lives. Their advice services provide emergency help for LGBT people who find themselves homesless, often following homophobic or transphobic harassment from their neighbours – their expert legal advice is a lifeline. Their Jigsaw project works with young people before they become homeless to step in and ensure that young people get the help they need. Pace provides LGBT people in extreme mental health distress with a range of interventions including support groups, counselling and family support. These are just a few examples of the work we and others do. We all have evidence, stories from our clients but also hard staistics about the differece we make.
It is true that at Galop most of our expenses go on staffing costs. This is because the help that we provide is an expert, sepcialist service provided by professionals – the main costs is providing those staff who can then deliver the service. The CEO role is reponsible for supervising all of this work, as well as bringing in the money and reporting back in a huge level of detail to funders. In addition, I spend a huge amount of time lobbying the police to provide the best posisble servuce to our communities. This has had specific and measurable successes over the years, including our involvement in improving a number of working prcatices I am confident that the police would acknowldge the influence that Galop has had.
I hope this goes someway to answering some of your concerns.
Thanks for the informative post!
I have no doubt that many of the charities do provide valuable services to vulnerable groups. I’m just curious to know if anyone has taken a comprehensive review over the services delivered by different groups, and identify duplications and opportunities for cooperation?
A shake up of the charity sector might be a good thing. In some areas almost all the available money is sucked up by one or two huge lesbian and gay charities. Some of these are little more than Labour-supporting quangos that are lavishly funded by the likes of the NHS. Should the NHS effectively be funding monthly glossy gay lifestyle magazines for example?
In some cases there are some very interesting connections behind the scenes too. Charity executives who have partners who are high up in the NHS, or chums who are Labour politicians and so on.
As Theresa May said at the Conservative Party Conference this week, spending less does not necessarily mean a poorer service if some of those services weren’t being run very well previously.
Kevin – thanks for those links, so staffing cost for 2009 for GALOP were 166,480 pounds. I didn’t look into much more detail but these charity jobs seem on the face of it to be very well paid. I think we should expect to see a fair amount of work done for that expenditure if indeed the public are financing it. I believe Stonewall’s staff expenditure is huge and the CEO at Stonewall is presumably paid a large salary. Given the insatisfaction with Stonewall by many of us and it’s lack of support of gay marriage then I have very little sympathy for that charity. I can’t speak for GALOP’s work but I hope that the staff and office and computer equipment are worth the money.
I am confused that with all the new legislation brought in by labour to protect us from discrimination etc that we need seperate charities soley for us eg housing etc….
I may have a one track mind but it seems we have no charity working for us to change the law on marriage equality yet security , housing etc are already catered for in the law and in councils ….
I’ll try to get back to some of your other questions in the next few days however I just want to clarify that Stonewall Housing is not related in any way to Stonewall. They are two entirely separate organisations that have never been linked. Stonewall Housing as I said before is an organisation that provides advice to homeless people and those in housing need, and which provides housing to homeless young people.
>Oh! for heavens sake Mark. Which Polytechnic told you all that twaddle.
> Comment by Dr Robin Guthrie — October 7, 2010 @ 19:31
That is a weak response to an interesting comment.
Get real chaps. These cuts are unavoidable due to an irresponsible Labour goverment who spent money they didn’t have. Everyone must feel the pain I’m afraid. Cameron has no choice in the matter.
Very enlightening post, Deborah, and very commendable work you do. It is understandable that at least where orgs like GALOP are concerned most income is required to pay staff salaries. Keep up the great work!
as opposed to Tory_AKA_Homophobes-supporting quangos …
Now Rich Tories will spend money they don’t have. They’re about to nominate you their slaves.
Lick their boots gay Tories —>>> Duhhhhhh
Some additional information
Income Costs Profit/Loss
NAM publications 2007/2008 1163379.00 1213688.00 50309.00
The Positive Place – 2007/2008 486159.00 490583.00 4424.00
Body and Soul 2008/2009 1327062.00 933422.00 393640.00
AVERT – 2008/2009 504174.00 515716.00 11542.00
DHIVERSE 450293.00 476431.00 26138.00
GLBT switchboard – 2008/2009 135583.00 211041.00 75458.00
GMFA 2008/2009 718753.00 681043.00 37710.00
NAT – 2008/2009 967506.00 937704.00 29802.00
NAZ project 2008/2009 890093.00 861925.00 28168.00
PACE Health – 2008/2009 766835.00 863965.00 97130.00
Positive East – 2008/2009 7621.00 23457.00 15836.00
Positive Women – 2008/2009 586802.00 593719.00 6917.00
Stonewall – 2008/2009 3843063.00 3131913.00 711150.00
The Food Chain 2008/2009 432681.00 434932.00 2251.00
THT – 2008/2009 18019000.00 18026000.00 7000.00
£30,299,004.00 -£29,395,539.00 £903,465.00
> as opposed to Tory_AKA_Homophobes-supporting quangos …
You behave as if you have tourettes.
@ de villiers, “You behave as if you have tourettes.”
“Now Rich Tories will spend money they don’t have.”
Bebert, you seem to have missed the fact that New Labour was full to the brim with champagne socialist. Check out the bank balances of the Labour Party’s high flyers, not exactly hand to mouth!!
Weak, Lee. Particularly in response to Berbert’s spasms.
But do the LibDems support or oppose these cuts to LGBT organisations? They should be judged by how they vote in Parliament, in the GLA and on local councils.
Views wanted on future of grants budget
London Councils is urging voluntary organisations to put forward their views on what should happen to its pan-London grants budget.
The organisation is today launching an extensive consultation to find out the best way of using the money for the benefit of boroughs, voluntary groups and people living in the capital.
Under the existing system, London’s boroughs take a decision each year to pool some of their funding and fund voluntary services on a regional level through the London Councils Grants Programme.
The consultation will be looking at whether a pan-London grants scheme is the best way for the money to be used, or whether boroughs can achieve a greater impact by spending money on their own locally determined priorities.
London Councils is urging all those working or with an interest in the voluntary sector to take part in the online survey and make their views heard. The consultation will run until 10 November.
Chair of London Councils Grants Committee, Mayor Sir Steve Bullock said:
“Voluntary groups provide many important services to those people in our society who are most vulnerable and boroughs recognise this by funding their work in a number of ways.
“Circumstances are very different now to when the programme was last reviewed five years ago and we need to make sure that local communities are getting the most from this money.
“We urge as many voluntary groups as possible, whether or not they receive funding under the existing scheme, to put forward their views so that any decision made has full and comprehensive input on the implications for the voluntary sector.”
Notes to editors:
More information and link to consultation
The closing date for the consultation is 10 November.
I think a lot of these Quangos were set up with good intentions, but they never really had to justify their existence. Even the BBC is technically a Quango. I appreciate many are necessary, but equally there is a load of publicly-funded crap that should have been shut down years ago, along with many others that are duplicating each others work and should be merged.
Do we really need Advisory Board on the Registration of Homeopathic Products, or the Caribbean Board or even Government Hospitality Advisory Committee on the Purchase of Wines?
Labour dropped us right in the sh|t and has left it for everyone else to wipe up. I am no pro-Tory, but I have a lot of respect for them facing up to an unpopular decision to get this country back on the rails again. These cuts are going to hurt everybody, but all the usual lefties can do is throw classist insults at them after their own people had thirteen years to fix it, but instead sold the family silver and blew every penny they had on fripperies and unnecessary expenditure.
Look I’m quite concerned about all the public money that goes to charities. Stonewall for instance charge 2000 pounds for their anuual membership fee for companies to go on their Diversity champion program. When you look at their top 100 employers a large amound of them are public funded councils etc. We seem to be paying via our rates / taxes for these charity to continue without even knowing about it. I for one resent my council paying 2000 pounds to Stonewall to have somekind of Stonewall rubber stamp on it when I believe the org is crap. Councils should already have sound , gound non discrminatory rules why do they have to be rubber stamped by Stonewall? These charities seem to have become big businesses rather than charities with well paid members of staff who swan around hoping for the next peerships to come along or the next commissioner role…
Given my personnel expereice with Stonewall and the £3m income for the past year John, is this charging structure impartial? Given the suplus or defict I have submitted, yet it does employ people but the question I raise is this social return upon investment, more or less?
Readers should refer to http://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/services/grants/aboutourfunding/grantsdiscussed.htm
London Councils has been undertaking an extensive consultation exercise to establish the best way of using its grant resources for the benefit of boroughs, voluntary groups and people living in the capital.
Under the existing system, London’s boroughs take a decision each year to pool some of their funding and fund voluntary services on a regional level through the London Councils Grants Programme. The consultation is looking at whether a pan-London grants scheme is the best way for the money to be used, or whether boroughs can achieve a greater impact by spending money on their own locally determined priorities.
The consultation ran until 10 November 2010 and London Councils urged all those working or with an interest in the voluntary sector to take part in the online survey and make their views heard, including the London Boroughs; other key funders of the voluntary and community sector in London; other major public sector bodies working in London; and of course voluntary sector organisations (those that are currently commissioned, and those that are not).
Various reports have been produced by Ipsos-MORI as part of the analysis of the online consultation responses to the ‘Review of the future role and scope of the London Councils Grants Scheme’, they include:
* A summary report Opens in a new window
* MORI-Ipsos table of responses Opens in a new window
* Compendium of responses